integrated flood management tools series risk sharing in flood management

Transcription

1 integrated flood management tools series risk sharing in flood management ISSUE 8 JULY 2013

2 The Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM) is a joint initiative of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP). It promotes the concept of Integrated Flood Management (IFM) as a new approach to flood management. The programme is financially supported by the governments of Japan, Switzerland and Germany. The World Meteorological Organization is a Specialized Agency of the United Nations and represents the UN-System s authoritative voice on weather, climate and water. It co-ordinates the meteorological and hydrological services of 189 countries and territories. The Global Water Partnership is an international network open to all organizations involved in water resources management. It was created in 1996 to foster Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Integrated Flood Management Tools Series No.8 World Meteorological Organization, revised 2013 Cover photo: Bangkok, Thailand, 13 November 2011 and courtesy of drpnncpptak / Shutterstock

3 To the reader This publication is part of the Flood Management Tools Series being compiled by the Associated Programme on Flood Management. The Risk Sharing in Flood Management Tool is based on available literature, and draws findings from relevant works wherever possible. This Tool addresses the needs of practitioners and allows them to easily access relevant guidance materials. The Tool is considered as a resource guide/material for practitioners and not an academic paper. References used are mostly available on the Internet and hyperlinks are provided in the References section. This Tool is a living document and will be updated based on sharing of experiences with its readers. The Associated Programme on Flood Management encourages flood managers and related experts engaged in sharing costs and risks in flood management around the globe to participate in the enrichment of the Tool. For this purpose, comments and other inputs are cordially invited. Authorship and contributions would be appropriately acknowledged. Please kindly submit your inputs to the following address: apfm@wmo.int under Subject: Risk Sharing in Flood Management. Acknowledgements This Tool has exploited the works of many organizations and experts, as listed in the references. Acknowledgement is due to the members of the Climate and Water Department in WMO and the members of the Technical Support Unit of the APFM for their competent technical guidance and frank discussions on the issues and for bringing various perspectives into focus. Special thanks to Ms Oksana Ekzarkho for providing additional input in the second version of the current tool. Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES

4

5 executive summary 1 Integrated Flood Management (IFM) aims to minimize loss of life from flooding while maximizing the net benefits derived from floodplains. With IFM, the management of flood risks is based on a judicious combination of measures that address risk reduction, retention and transfer through a strategic mix of structural and non-structural measures for preparedness, response and recovery. Decisions have to be made on how to share the cost of taking risk placed on society among governments (central, regional and local governments), interested parties (such as private companies), communities and individuals. This tool is primarily aimed at flood managers and in particular those that are involved in formulating flood management strategies and policies. It attempts to provide rapid access to information on risk sharing mechanisms as part of the overall flood management strategy. 2 Flood risks are essentially the costs of taking risk: the sum total of the cost of risk reduction, costs of managing the residual risks and the flood losses that finally materialize. There are three strategies for risk management: risk reduction, risk retention and, as a last resort, risk transfer. Risk reduction includes activities that contribute towards diminishing the probability of potential losses. Flood risk due to events greater in magnitude than the design floods of mitigation measures also comprises the efforts required to reduce the residual risks. At the same time, risk transfer works if a project shares its risk with another party, such as an insurance provider, by getting insurance policies that cover various kinds of risk that can be insured. However, risk retention has even broader implications because every time a policy calls for a deductible, it retains some of the risk. An efficient solution requires a combination of all three strategies for risk management. 3 Risk reduction is the first step in the risk management process. With the IFM approach, flood risks can be reduced through structural or non-structural measures either through decrease of flood magnitudes or through reduction of exposure of economic activities. For example, nonstructural flood management measures such as flood proofing, flood forecasting and warning, and disaster prevention, preparedness and response mechanisms, and land use regulations have narrow environmental effects and should be favorably examined as viable options. At the same time, risk reduction can be achieved by reducing the vulnerability of those exposed to floods. A judicious combination of these tactics is generally the answer. An equitable mechanism for sharing the costs of risk reduction is based on providing basic protection against a minimum level of flooding, addressing vulnerability and accelerating wealth generation. The federal government, as the chief development agent in a welfare state, should generally be able to bear this cost. The costs of protection against higher floods can be distributed between the state and municipal authorities since they benefit direct revenue from economic activities. For any protection above basic minimum, the cost of risk reduction should be shared through various financial instruments. 4 Since protection against all floods is neither financially viable nor environmentally sustainable, residual risks are always present. Emergency preparedness plans, early warnings and disaster response actions are undertaken to keep materialized risk to a minimum. Individuals also bear responsibility to reduce their own vulnerability and implement proofing measures such as INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES

6 retro-fitting. Physical diversion of flood risks by diverting floodwaters to less vulnerable areas is also an important option for flood risk management. 5 Even with all these measures in place, flooding results in losses due to direct damage to properties and indirect damage such as interruption of economic activities. Some materialized losses are absorbed by the element as retained risks. Depending on the capacity and vulnerability of the elements at risk, such retained risk may impact the recovery from flood and may turn it into a disaster. In order to share the cost of recovery, some of the materialized risk is transferred through insurance as the last step in a systematic risk management process. Insurance thus protects capital, enhances solvency, allows recovery, and if designed carefully, has the potential to encourage risk reduction behavior. Small scale floods are predictable, making risk reduction methods most suitable for dealing with them. On the other hand, low-probability high-consequence events easily have higher impacts, and recovery from those events may hamper a national economy or destroy the insurance market. Insurance instruments are most suitable for middle levels of risk, due to medium-probability medium-consequence events. Reinsurers play crucial role in low-frequency high-impact events. 6 Recently, non-traditional financial mechanisms have been developed for the facilitation and support of recovery from flood events. Index-based insurance, catastrophe bonds and microinsurance are examples of such financing instruments. Some of those mechanisms have almost exclusively been employed in developed countries. It is important that a developing country perspective be brought into the financial risk sharing debate. A discussion of these financial mechanisms can contribute to relieving pressure on public finances with respect to development activities and governmental services, particularly in developing countries. introduction Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

7 contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD RISKS Understanding flood risks Managing flood risks 9 3 SHARING THE COSTS OF RISK TAKING Sharing costs of flood risk reduction Sharing the cost of residual risk reduction Physical transfer of residual flood risks 16 4 FINANCIAL RISK SHARING INSTRUMENTS Materialised risk and disaster relief Sharing materialised risk through risk transfer Traditional flood insurance Reinsurance Non-traditional financial mechanisms Index-based insurance Catastrophe bonds Micro-insurance Government financing instrument 28 5 EXAMPLES OF SHARING FINANCIAL RISK National Flood Insurance Plan (USA) Crop insurance system (Pakistan) CATNAT (France) Turkish catastrophic insurance pool Cat bonds Micro-insurance (India) Catastrophe risk insurance facility (South-Eastern Europe) The Insurance Council s Residential flood insurance project (Australia) Index-based insurance in Malawi 34 6 CONCLUSIONS 35 ANNEX: GLOSSARY REFERENCES FURTHER READING I IV viii INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES

8 FIGURES Figure 1 Concept of flood risk and its reduction 7 Figure 2 Managing Flood Risks 8 Figure 3 Cost of taking flood risks 8 Figure 4 Cost components of risk taking considered as the flood risk of measures 9 Figure 5 Physical risk transfer by diversion of flood water to agricultural lands 17 Figure 6 Applicability of insurance based on flood magnitude and losses (MCII, 2008) 21 BOXES Box 1 Definition of risk 6 Box 2 Insurance Principles and Floods 22 Box 3 Index-based insurance contracts 26

9 1 introduction 7 Floodplains provide excellent livelihood opportunities for habitation, agriculture and commerce. Where these floodplains have been protected from frequent flooding, they have developed into throbbing economic centres. The Integrated Flood Management (IFM) approach aims to maximize the net benefits from floodplains and at the same time reduce loss of life, flood vulnerability, and risks. The concept recognizes the importance of flood plains and the increasing development demands they face, while simultaneously recognizing the disruptive nature of floods. IFM aims at a fundamental re-orientation of social perception of floods from need to control to need to manage. It integrates structural and non-structural measures, land and water management, ecosystem preservation and development needs, and short- and long-term mitigation measures. 8 Agriculture continues to be an important source of livelihood in most developing countries. Due to exposure to frequent flooding, the poor and marginal farmers that occupy flood plains tend to adopt low-risk strategies, such as, for instance, devoting most of their land to crop varieties that promise more reliable yet lower yields. The uncertainty posed by flooding prevents these poor farmers from making higher risk, higher return investments, resulting in economically inefficient use of natural resources, further increasing their vulnerability. In the event of a lowfrequency high-impact flood event, they often lose their productive assets and are pushed into a downward spiral of poverty. 9 Living harmoniously with floods is an important strategic option in IFM, which provides a suitable framework for flood risk management. Integrated flood management is based on the proactive strategy of risk management through a three-pronged attack on reduction of risks by reducing magnitudes, vulnerability and the exposure of the economic activities. It also involves addressing issues at all three phases of the risk management cycle: preparedness, response, and recovery and reconditioning. IFM seeks to set up a transparent mechanism for sharing the cost society must pay for taking risks due to flooding. Under such a mechanism, the interplay between floods, the development process and poverty must be understood. A population may INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 1

10 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT be poor because it is regularly exposed to flooding, or it might be exposed to flooding because it is poor and occupies the most vulnerable land (WMO, 2009). 10 Accordingly, IFM is based on the following principles: Adopting a basin approach to flood management; Bringing a multi-disciplinary approach to flood management; Addressing climate variability and change; and Enabling community participation in decision-making. 11 Traditionally, in the larger public interest, governments use public funds to provide the finances required to manage risks. Flood defenses are built according to a pre-defined design flood in order to reduce risk. Society must deal with the residual risks of flooding that exceeds the design flood. For decades, the financing of relief and recovery efforts after flood disasters in developing countries has relied on the diversion of funds from domestic budgets and financing from international donors. Such reactive approaches are often poorly targeted, inefficient and insufficient. Moreover, they provide no incentives for proactive risk reduction measures such as improved urban planning and higher construction standards. 12 With growing populations that put extra pressure on limited natural resources, particularly in the flood plains, the increasing frequency and intensity of flooding due to climate change, and the adverse impacts of flooding and greater flood losses on the development process, flood management practitioners and policy makers, particularly those in developing countries, have to judiciously allocate their limited resources. They must pay special attention to ensuring the distribution of the costs of flood risk management measures across society. 13 It is of prime importance to devise an approach to risk sharing that is economically efficient, corresponds to the shared principles of equitable treatment and fairness towards various groups in society, and encourages and strengthens solidarity. It is therefore necessary to take a comprehensive and transparent approach to distributing risks posed by flooding across the stakeholder spectrum, which includes various layers of the government, the private sector including the insurance industry, individual users and residents of areas prone to flooding. Risk must be apportioned according to the capacity and capability of the stakeholders but must also be able to meet societal goals for well-being and sustainable development. 14 Sharing of the financial cost 1 of taking risk can be addressed through a number of measures such as appropriate allocation of the cost of risk reduction measures, sharing the financial cost of disaster relief, and risk transfer mechanisms. This tool for Risk Sharing in Flood Management discusses various mechanisms for sharing risks. Some of the approaches, such as traditional claims-based insurance solutions, have been deployed for a long time with varying degrees of success. Others have only recently been developed or adapted into flood management. These approaches draw on lessons learned from managing risks due to other natural hazards and are at varying stages of product development. As a result, doubts about their acceptability in the 1 Generally, the term financial can be used in connection with individuals while the term economy is connected to the wealth system as a whole. This document uses financial mostly when individual or multiplied individual risk or mechanism is emphasized. 2 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

11 introduction market remain. Furthermore, some mechanisms have almost exclusively been employed in developed countries. 15 The following tool is primarily written for flood managers and in particular those that are involved in formulating flood management strategies and policies. It is presumed that these flood managers primarily have engineering backgrounds and are not fully conversant with financial jargon. This tool is an attempt to provide rapid access to information on risk sharing mechanisms as part of an overall flood management strategy. 16 The tool defines risk sharing as the allocation of costs of taking risks, encompassing bearing the financial and other costs of flood risk management, and explains the shared responsibility of each stakeholder within the relevant physical, technical, economic and political contexts. It highlights the mechanisms for spreading the financial burden for flood management based on the principles of efficiency and fairness, that is, incorporating equity in flood risk management with economic effectiveness. It provides an overview of flood insurance and other forms of transferring flood risks and deals with the inter-relationship between flood insurance, building resilience and reducing risks in affected communities, and takes a brief look at alternative methods of sharing financial risks from floods, such as government-issued calamity and reconstructions bonds, and internal and external solidarity funds. INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 3

12

13 2 INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD RISKS 17 Risk is both a scientific and a social concept. Furthermore, it is not only a physical phenomenon but also a culture alone, conceptualized as the dangers that societies define as troublesome (Rees, 2002). Therefore, besides incorporating a solid physical science and technology base, risk must be studied and understood in a societal context. The physical flood event does not create a risk of loss or a disaster by itself. It is human activity that generates the risk of disaster. At the same time, it is not only the hydrological uncertainty that generates risk but also the political, economic and social uncertainty that add to the risk. Risk has the potential to be accentuated with engineering modification of the physical environment. A dyke, for example, could reduce exposure to a certain hazard magnitude event, but at the same time increase vulnerability of the properties behind it by providing a false sense of security. Under these circumstances, it is important to appropriately understand flood risks in order to understand their effective management. 2.1 Understanding flood risks 18 The dictionary defines risk in many ways, but some elements such as chance and loss are common to all definitions. Mathematically, it is expressed as the product of the chance (or probability) of an event occurring and the impact (or consequence) associated with that event (UK Defra/Environment Agency, 2003). INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 5

14 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT Box 1 Definition of risk Risk consists of the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences. Under natural conditions, flood risk is mathematically defined as follows: Risk (probable loss) = probability * consequence p [H] = v [D] * s [H,D] where p [H] = probability of occurrence of the hazard; v [D] = value of the elements at risk, which is a function of the development in the exposed areas, the land use and the probability of presence (exposure); and s [H,D] = the susceptibility of the elements at risk, which is a function of the magnitude of the hazard as well as the socio-economic construct of the exposed elements (vulnerability). 19 Accordingly, flood risks are defined as the expected losses from given flood events, in a given area, over a specified period. 20 Flood risk can also be assessed through a Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence (SPRC) model, which accounts for (Floodsite, 2005): The nature and probability of the hazard (the source); The degree of exposure of the receptor to the hazard (the pathway); The susceptibility of the receptor to the hazard; and The value of receptor, or the element at risk (the consequence). 21 The susceptibility of the receptor depends on its sensitivity the damage caused by an event of a given magnitude, and adaptive capacity the ability of a system to moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities, or cope with the consequences. The value and susceptibility of the receptor are combined to represent vulnerability. 22 Often, exposure is also included as a factor that determines vulnerability. In this publication, however, a clear distinction between exposure and the vulnerability is maintained while defining flood risks. It helps to analyze flood risks, allowing for a clear distinction between strategies that can be adopted to modify pathways through engineering means and those that require consideration of social issues that address vulnerability (WMO, 2006a). To follow an integrated approach to flood management, it is beneficial to define and understand the construct of flood risks, which consists of the following, also represented in Figure 1: The magnitude of the flood hazard expressed in terms of frequency and severity (depths of inundation and related velocities and duration); The exposure of the elements to flooding; and The vulnerability of the elements at risk. 6 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

15 INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD RISKS Figure 1 Concept of flood risk and its reduction 23 Engineering of flood protection measures is based on the acceptable threshold for which structures are designed to provide protection and reduce risks. Linked to this is the uncertainty of the reliability of hydraulic structures designed for such events; safety of the exposed population and assets remains dependent on a protection that can fail. Even if flood probability and risk are reduced to extremely low levels through high levels of protection, residual flood risks always remain. Efforts are always made to reduce these residual risks. Flood loss occurs when these residual risks materialize. 24 Integrated flood management manages these risks through the application of risk management principles such as: Adopting a best mix of strategies Reducing vulnerability, exposure and risks Managing the water cycle as a whole by considering all floods, including both extremes Ensuring a participatory approach Integrating land and water management, as both have impacts on flood magnitudes and flood risks Adopting integrated hazard management approaches (including risks due to all related hazards such as landslides, mudflows, avalanches, storm surges), and creating synergies 25 Risk management calls for identification, analysis, assessment, control, avoidance, minimization, or elimination of unacceptable risks through policies, procedures, and practices. There are three strategies for risk management: risk reduction, risk retention and, as a last resort, risk transfer. Some ways of managing risk fall into multiple categories. Figure 2 illustrates this concept. INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 7

16 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT Figure 2 Managing Flood Risks 26 Risk reduction, also known as loss prevention, includes activities that contribute towards diminishing the probability of potential losses. However, it is recognised that no degree of protection is insurmountable. There is always the possibility of residual risks a flood event greater in magnitude than the design flood used to create the protection. 27 It should, however, be recognized that there are indirect costs of taking risks, such as losses or damage to the environment (degradation and loss of environmental services, among others) as well as psychological and cultural costs, which cannot be quantified. The cost of risk taking is illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 Cost of taking flood risks 8 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

17 INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD RISKS 2.2 Managing flood risks 28 Flood plains provide tremendous benefit to the socio-economic development of a society. For this reason, they have long been the preferred place for human settlements. At the same time, flood plains are also subjected to the risks posed by intermittent flooding, which is the price of deriving the benefits. Society has continued to make use of flood prone areas where the perceived benefits from living in an endangered area exceed the disadvantages associated with the risk. Such benefits have to outnumber the costs created by the flood risks. In order to maximize the net benefits from the flood plains, flood risks to economic and social activities have to be reduced to a minimum, and residual risks must be managed. 29 For cost-benefit analysis of any flood management measure, estimation of potential losses has to be made for the lifetime of a particular measure. To calculate this, flood loss data must be converted into potential average annual losses (WMO, 2007). 30 Risk management, therefore, includes the efforts made to reduce residual risks. Such efforts involve the use of flood sensitive land and spatial planning, early warning, flood proofing as well as evacuation and preparation for disaster relief (WMO, 2008; 2012). Finally, with all these efforts in place, flooding results in losses arising out of damage to properties and the interruption of economic activities. Such losses have the potential to increase the vulnerability of the population that is directly or indirectly affected by them. The materialised losses that are absorbed by the element at risk are also called retained risks. In order to help recovery of the affected areas and populations, some of the materialised risk is transferred, which entails passing a part of the materialised risk to the public at large through the national exchequer, or spreading it internationally through aid agencies. Another financial mechanism for risk transfer is to transfer the risk to another economic agent for an exchange price, called a premium. 31 Typically, an efficient solution requires a combination of all the three strategies. Each of the strategies deployed has a cost and corresponding benefits. It is possible to determine an optimal combination of strategies based on a cost benefit analysis (WMO, 2007). 32 In practical terms, in situations where flood management measures have been taken, flood risks should be treated as the costs of taking risk. These costs include the costs of risk reduction and of managing the residual risks as well as the flood losses that finally materialize. Figure 4 Cost components of risk taking considered as the flood risk of measures INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 9

18

19 3 SHARING THE COSTS OF RISK TAKING 33 Decisions to manage risks depend on how the risks are shared among various administrative entities and whether transferring of risks in time or in space is a viable option. Broadly, there are five competing sets of risk decision principles that should be considered with respect to risk sharing in the water-related hazards sector: precautionary vs reactive, uniform vs subsidiary, individual choice (market) vs paternalism, professionally determined vs political bargaining, and risk generator vs risk bearer vs taxpayer (Rees, 2002). 34 The paradigm shift from engineering-centred flood control practices to integrated flood management practices in many countries across the globe is resulting in corresponding shifts in governance arrangements for flood management. The most notable of these are decentralization of responsibility, increased participation of stakeholders in decision-making and the increasing influence of the private sector. Climate change as a driving force behind increasing flood risks and the call for application of the polluter pays principle 2 add another angle to the debate. This change has led to questions concerning the appropriate division of responsibility between the state and its citizens and the fitness for purpose of the current appraisal, prioritization and decision-making processes. Integrated flood management through stakeholders involvement in the decision-making process calls for new cooperative arrangements between the state (and among various tiers of government therein), private companies, civil society and individuals. 35 All those within a basin, region or a country have a either a direct stake in the flood risk management system because of their exposure to flood risk, or an indirect stake. Those within 2 According to the recommendation of Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1972, the Polluter-Pays Principle is a principle to be used for allocating costs of pollution prevention and control measures to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid distortions in international trade and investment. This principle means that the polluter should bear the expense of carrying out the above mentioned measures decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable state (OECD 1972). INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 11

20 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT the basin contribute to flood risks in flood prone areas through various economic activities. However, the infrastructure (roads and railways) and economic activities on flood plains facilitate economic development even beyond the basin. By virtue of their status as taxpayers, people outside flood prone areas have a stake in how expenditure decisions on flood loss mitigation and relief expenditure are taken. In an urban context, populations located in upstream areas as well as those in downstream low-lying areas derive benefits from the timely evacuation of rain waters through the construction of storm drainage systems. Basin solidarity can be one of the ways to account for and compensate downstream residents for upstream watershed changes that alter flood characteristics. 36 Principles of cost allocation need to be set up. Based on the above considerations, the costs of taking flood risks have to be distributed not only among those occupying the flood plains and drawing direct benefits, but also among those who derive indirect benefits. For the purposes of equity and fairness, these costs should also be allocated in a transparent manner. Risk sharing is one of the aspects of risk management that deals with the way the cost of risk is distributed among several stakeholders: the federal, state and local governments and the flood effected individuals (Galloway, 1994). 37 Risk sharing includes: Sharing the costs for risk reduction Sharing the costs of residual risk reduction Sharing the materialized risk, i.e. the losses or consequences 3.1 Sharing costs of flood risk reduction 38 The first step in risk management is risk reduction. Within the integrated flood management approach, potential flood risk can be reduced either through decreasing flood magnitudes (that is, by creation of retention basins), decreasing exposure of economic activities, decreasing vulnerability, or a judicious combination of the three. It entails a variety of measures that require financial resources, the availability of which consequently determines which of the possible options can be executed. Building a culture of prevention is not easy. While the costs of prevention have to be paid in the present, its benefits lie in a distant future. Moreover, the benefits are not tangible; they are the disasters that did NOT happen. Kofi Annan, Since flood risks are a construct of flood hazards, exposure of economic activities and vulnerability of the society affected by floods, it is crucial that options to reduce each of these components are fully explored when attempting to reduce overall flood risks. 40 Exposure is the measure of the population and assets that would be directly exposed to a flood in absence of flood protection. The level of exposure does not necessarily translate into impact. The link between exposure and the residual risk of impact depends on flood protection measures. Exposed populations and assets should thus be distinguished from populations 12 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

21 SHARING THE COSTS OF RISK TAKING and assets at risk even in the presence of protection. Exposure, however, is a useful metric because it provides the basic information required to assess the need for flood protections. 41 Another approach is to increase society s resilience in the face of adverse impacts. Reducing vulnerability plays a key role in dealing with residual risks and in strategies for living with floods. Vulnerability to flood hazards can be reduced by a certain extent through measures that promote resilience, adaptation and flood risk reduction. A detailed discussion on vulnerability characteristics and the measures that may be useful in dealing with them may be found in the Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM) publication Social Aspects and Stakeholders Involvement in Integrated Flood Management (WMO, 2006a). Reducing vulnerability also requires disaster analysis in order to learn lessons and integrate corrective measures into prevention and preparedness plans. 42 This still leaves residual risks caused by extreme flood events. Those events either exceed the design flood level or the level societies would have experienced under natural climate variability. Some efforts have been made to prevent further adverse impacts, recondition important infrastructure and document these events. The reduction of vulnerability through preparedness (such as the use of early warning systems) is essential to achieve development goals. 43 Below is a non-exhaustive list of options for reducing each of the three factors contributing to flood risks. Actual actions taken will depend on the conditions of risk and the social, economic and physical setting in question. 44 Many view the government as responsible for protecting the public, and thus for bearing the cost of flood risks as well. Traditionally, governments take primary responsibility for protecting the public from floods in all its aspects. Due to competition from other societal needs, and because the resources come from public funds, governments are often concerned about the fiscal implications of taking full responsibility for the entire cost of flood risks. They thus seek measures to share the costs of risk between the various tiers of government (federal, state and local), as well as households and businesses. Table 1 Options for reducing flood risks 3 3 The APFM Tool Series addresses many of those options and aspects of reduction of flood risk in detail; accessible through INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 13

22 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT 45 To what extent risk can be shared by the poor who generally (and particularly in developing countries) occupy risk prone areas is arguable. A transfer of burden to an already vulnerable population cannot be justified through an argument for efficiency and loss reduction. Such a transfer invokes fundamental questions about equity and social solidarity in the provision of relief to victims of catastrophic floods. This includes questions about how much those in nonrisk areas and the general tax-paying public contribute to preventing losses and compensating victims in vulnerable communities, and to what extent the burden should be borne by those who are located in high-risk areas. These issues are deeply rooted in societal values and the socio-economic and political environment in a given flood situation. 46 A mechanism for sharing the costs of risk reduction could be developed where the federal government provides a basic level of protection against a minimum level of flooding while the costs of protection against higher floods would be distributed between state and local authorities. Projects funded by the federal government places responsibility on all taxpayers; this is appropriate where there are countrywide benefits in terms of national security, protection of infrastructure and generation of livelihoods. According to Ingram, crises create consent, and should be used creatively and effectively to alter the contemporary allocation of responsibilities among federal, state and local entities (Ingram, 1988). 47 State and local authorities benefit from activities that provide them with direct revenue and should therefore, in principle, bear the costs of risk reduction for any protection above the basic minimum. They can also use various financial instruments, such as market bonds, which can increase the state s ability to fund large projects in the short-term. Bonds are an appropriate tool to be used when the asset produced will provide long-term benefits. Bonds could be backed by the authority s General Fund and/or another funding source such as user fees. 48 In the United States of America, the Galloway Report (produced by the U.S. Interagency Flood Plain Management Review Committee, established after the Midwest Floods of 1993) recommended introducing cost sharing provisions for State and local participation in recovery, response and mitigation activities (Galloway, 1994). The report stated that all those who support the risk, either directly or indirectly, must share in the management and costs of reducing that risk. To use an example, the federal/state cost-share, originally set at 75/25, was adjusted to 90/10 for major disasters (Hurricane Andrew, the Midwest flooding, and the Northridge earthquake). These changes in cost-share percentages have two significant potential consequences: they raise the expectation of similar treatment for future disasters, and they lose sight of the fundamental purpose behind cost sharing, which is to increase local involvement, responsibility, and accountability. Flood losses actually incurred by individuals and communities can be shared by putting in place a flood insurance program that obtains its support from those who are protected. Disaster support for those in the floodplain is contingent upon participation in these self-help mitigation programs. However, this system is applicable only in those socio-economic environments where the entire population has the means to participate in the self-help mitigation program. To do otherwise, would be to run the risk of widening the gap between the rich and poor strata of the population: whereas the poorer sections may not have the means to contribute and therefore would not benefit from disaster relief activities, the richer sections would receive recovery assistance from the program they contributed to. 49 In Japan, the River Law (enacted in 1896, totally revised in 1964, last amended in 1997) has played an important role in forming policy for flood management. The River Law assigns 14 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

23 SHARING THE COSTS OF RISK TAKING the costs related to river administration to the central government for class A rivers, and to prefectural government for class B rivers. However, upon government ordinance, a prefecture government may in principle undertake half of the administration cost for a major part of the class A river within the named prefecture. At the same time, the central government can also provide subsidies of up to half of the cost for designated major works on class B rivers 4. In times of flooding, the responsibility for flood response and action taken to mitigate the impact of floods lies mainly with the local government 5. It is the responsibility of the State to take emergency measures in the event of a large-scale disaster. In the case of extreme floods, the federal government provides special financial support to local governments (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2011). The overall management of all natural disasters is based on another law that clarifies the responsibility of the State, local governments and the public. 50 In Switzerland, the role of the federal government is largely limited to the provision of financial, scientific and technical support, with cantons and communes taking on the principal duties of emergency management (WMO, 2006b). The federal government is responsible only for tasks that are explicitly in the Constitution. The Federal Law assigns responsibility for flood control to the cantons, which in turn can assign this task to municipalities or even to riparian landowners. This means that the role of the Federal Government is limited to providing financial support and, as required, technical and scientific support. It has to be noted that financial support can be provided only if projects fulfill the objectives as defined in the Law (chapter 1 of the Swiss law). Subsidies from the federal government cover, on average, 30% of the total costs. Their size depends on the financial power of the canton and/or of the municipality concerned. The maximum amount is 45%, which may exceptionally be raised to 65% for restitution after flood disasters. The remaining costs are distributed between the canton (frequently 30%) and its municipalities. Whereas the cantons are the executing agencies, technical knowledge will always be supplied by the canton even if the municipalities are responsible. The initiative for protection projects must come from municipalities. 51 Sometimes part of the costs can be transferred to individuals through direct taxes. For example, the Netherlands water boards fully fund all operations, including flood protection, from a levy and tax based on the size of the stakeholders property. Another example is the house bank approach of Dutch Water Bank, which borrows long term capital from international markets at fine rates, and acts as the house bank to the water boards (GWP, 2008). Individual initiative for reducing flood risks may also be encouraged through economic incentives. The State can thus increasingly but not exclusively rely on user fees and/or assessments, an application of the beneficiary pays principle. Additional fees or assessments may be used for operations and maintenance, for direct capital outlay, or to pay off bonds. In such cases, it is important to transparently assess the proportionate benefits to each stakeholder faction. However, the incentive issue is somewhat irrelevant in poor areas, particularly in developing countries and informal settlements composed of environmental or economic migrants. 4 River Law in Japan (in Japanese), Articles 59-62: Japan Government, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Available at: 5 Flood Fighting Law in Japan (in Japanese), Article Japan Government, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Available at: INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 15

24 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT 3.2 Sharing the cost of residual risk reduction 52 Residual risks will always be present because it is impossible to provide protection against floods of all magnitudes. They tend to increase with time, since economic activities and construction of structural measures in protected areas increase with time. This is one of the reasons why flood damages continue to rise despite substantial investments in flood control measures. Climate change will also result in increased residual risks due to greater uncertainty about magnitude and frequency of flood events. 53 Emergency preparedness plans, early warnings and disaster response actions must be undertaken in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of residual risks arising from overtopping of hydraulic flood protection structures and keep materialised risk to a minimum. Information is required not only to assess residual risk, but also to evaluate the flood risk in each area and the reliability of structural flood protection measures. Land-use planning and zoning regulations such as building codes can help local authorities limit development in vulnerable areas. Safety and preservation of life is the top priority in emergency preparedness. Similarly, it is necessary to take into consideration the consequences of materialized risks in terms of time and location, such as the risks from overtopping/breach of flood protection measures. In this case, population and properties at risk need to be assessed in advance and incorporated into disaster preparedness plans. Early warning of impending failure/overtopping would require close monitoring of the conditions that are likely to generate such a situation. Many of these parameters, particularly hydro-climatic, are monitored at the basin level and beyond. Federal authorities have the responsibility to provide these at the national level. 54 Rescuing victims and providing assistance in case of need can be best addressed by community-based authorities, since they are the first to respond in emergency situations. Local authorities have to share in this responsibility by investing in preparedness, executing regular evacuation drills and organising rescue and relief operations. They, along with State authorities, are responsible for promulgating and implementing land use plans in protected areas, including building codes and flood proofing measures. 55 Individuals bear responsibility to reduce their own vulnerability through implementation of flood proofing measures such as retro-fitting (WMO, 2012). Communities have the potential to handle response planning and emergency management, and should therefore be effectively mobilised and have appropriate institutional support. 3.3 Physical transfer of residual flood risks 56 When feasible, physically transferring flood risks can be an important option in flood risk management. This is based on the premise that protection objectives for protected areas are set differently depending on the nature of land use. Where human lives or a high level of material damage is at stake, protection levels will be higher than they may be in areas used for farming or forestry. Thus some areas may be flooded often, others seldom and a few others, as far as possible, never. Protection objectives must therefore be defined in relation to land use. 16 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

25 SHARING THE COSTS OF RISK TAKING 57 Traditionally, levels of protection were set without regard to the vulnerability of the land to be protected. The risk-based approach (USACE, 1996), however, seeks to define optimal flood protection through an economic evaluation of damages, including consideration of various uncertainties. In this approach, a number of alternative solutions are evaluated in order to determine their expected economic net benefit (benefit minus the cost). In certain cases, the risk-based approach is undertaken by fixing and factoring in different design thresholds for embankments providing protection to urban areas and those providing protection to rural areas. Furthermore, cities in wealthier countries have higher protection levels than those in the developing world. Physically transferring risk, by methods such as diversion of flood waters to less vulnerable areas, can also help manage the overall flood risk. It is, however, not only the monetary value of assets that should shape that choice: equity issues between urban/rural, rich/poor neighbours, and appropriate compensation through negotiations need to be factored in as well. 58 Figure 5 illustrates a fictitious river basin segment: a hypothetical situation where an upstream agricultural/rural area can be used to divert and temporarily store flood waters in order to prevent overtopping/breaching of the embankments downstream, thus protecting the urban areas with dense population and economic activities. By diverting water into agricultural areas, very high potential losses in urban areas can be avoided. This may result in actual agricultural damages that are higher than the potential agricultural damages calculated before the flood event. Such an arrangement would require additional compensation in agricultural/rural areas over and above the actual agricultural damages materialised. Such compensation must be agreed upon in advance, at the disaster preparedness planning stage, through a transparent process involving all affected parties and the insurance companies. The real-time operation of such a mechanism would require close monitoring and a clearly established decision-making process supported by early warnings. The feasibility of such an arrangement would also depend on geo-physical characteristics. Similar arrangements include the retention of rain water in natural or man-made depressions. Figure 5 Physical risk transfer by diversion of flood water to agricultural lands INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 17

26 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT 59 However, such a mechanism requires extensive consultations and negotiations with all stakeholders, particularly the affected communities. All such measures should be based on an understandable, transparent, and comprehensive weighing of interests. A compromise satisfactory to all parties involved must be arrived at through a participatory approach to communication and discussion. Landowners and farmers directly affected by such diversion should be closely involved in the planning of measures as well as the search for a financial compensation (risk transfer) mechanism that is closely linked to the physical risk transfer. To the extent that individual interests are compatible with general welfare, a spirit of give and take should be promoted. Furthermore, legal frameworks should be in place to facilitate such transfers 18 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

27 4 FINANCIAL RISK SHARING INSTRUMENTS 4.1 Materialised risk and disaster relief 60 Flooding results in disasters if the people at risk are unable to cope with the consequences of retaining materialized risks. Those most exposed to and affected by natural hazards are the poor in developing countries, who are usually the occupants of the most susceptible areas. Either due to their vulnerability and consequent limited political power, or due to reasons of convenience for making a living when floods are not occurring (such as ease of access to working areas and river water), they live with a high risk of flooding. Furthermore, materialized risk for the poor and vulnerable segments of the population often adds to their vulnerability. In order to recover from flood events, they may have no choice other than to resort to sale of personal assets and loans, likely pushing them into a downward spiral of vulnerability and poverty. This is often seen as a primary cause for what has been called the poverty trap. There are different views on who should bear the losses in such situations. 61 The poor and vulnerable have limited or no access to insurance and financial services. In most cases they have to manage and compensate for flood losses on their own. The lack of financial compensation can slow recovery. Sometimes government assistance for the survivors of a disaster may be dependent on the whim of a politician, who may be influenced by many other issues and not always entirely objective. 62 Sharing the materialised risk includes formal and informal responses to expected losses, such as self-insurance, precautionary savings in financial or other assets, social networks and formal insurance. Public disaster relief systems (emergency subsistence and soft loans, for example) are often set up to cater to victims of natural disasters. Another resort is to transfer the materialized risk over time through insurance, which is a post-event compensatory mechanism available at a given cost. The adverse impacts of retaining risk can be avoided through reliance INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 19

28 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT on savings, loans from friends and family members, or the selling of assets. Governments provide disaster aid, often from development budgets, in order to prevent flood events from turning into disasters. 63 Such disaster aid is rooted in the concept of social solidarity with the flood victims, which is a valued public virtue that promotes a humanitarian and equitable society. Taxpayers solidarity with flood victims is not necessarily typical only of a socialistic political setup, but is also diffused in market driven economies 6. It holds strong appeal for those who see assistance to disaster victims as promoting a humanitarian and stable society, even if it encourages risktaking behavior. However, due to resource constrains when development budgets are diverted for relief and rehabilitation, particularly in developing countries, development programs are heavily impacted, often resulting in loss of GDP growth. 4.2 Sharing materialised risk through risk transfer 64 Transferring risk through insurance is the last step in a systematic risk management process. It protects capital, enhances solvency, allows for recovery, and, if designed carefully, has the potential to encourage risk reduction. At the same time, while risk transfer can be very beneficial, it does not actually reduce the total risk it just moves the risk either in time or by transferring it to other entities. However, problems insetting up risk-transfer schemes remain where: There is a large concentration of risk: When there are many policies at risk from the same event. Ownership is difficult to establish: When establishing ownership of assets lost is non-trivial, concerning, for example, fisheries, ecosystems or water supply. Damages are difficult to quantify: When it is difficult to assess the financial value of damage to livelihoods and cultural capital, thus making risk-transfer mechanisms problematic. 65 Before reaching a decision as to which risks can be cost-effectively transferred, it is essential that activities are thoroughly organized in order to reduce risks as far as economically possible. This involves planning to eliminate avoidable risks and designing resilience into systems and assets. 66 Small-scale floods happen fairly often. Without appropriate management, these flood risks inhibit optimal utilization of flood plain resources. If losses occur frequently, the rationale for an insurance system becomes questionable. Moreover, small events are predictable, and risk reduction methods are most suitable for dealing with such risks. Frequent risks require other strategies for mitigation and management (USAID, 2006). The cost of mitigation increases dramatically as the magnitude of a flood event increases, making those methods economically unviable. 6 In Hungary, where a transition from socialist to market economy has been experienced, floods and loss sharing was discussed in terms of public-private insurance system, which changed from an original situation of 100% full compensation by the government (Linnerooth-Bayer and Vari 2003) to a public-private system with significant cross-subsidization from persons living in low-risk areas to persons living in high-risk areas, making it possible for poor persons in high-risk areas to afford flood cover. 20 Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

29 FINANCIAL RISK SHARING INSTRUMENTS 67 Insurance instruments are most suitable for middle layers risks. In case of low-probability high consequence events, the insurance market often fails. In such events, particularly in situations where the risk is concentrated in relatively small areas (such as densely populated cities, protected with levees), requires government, donors and other international institutions to provide re-insurance. This is known as catastrophe insurance. Here the cover is often based on individual private insurance policies and the state involvement is only for reinsurance and/ or catastrophe situations. Figure 6 depicts the potential applicability of each of the instruments depending on the losses or magnitude of floods or losses from the floods. Figure 6 Applicability of insurance based on flood magnitude and losses (MCII, 2008) 68 Existing levels of insurance vary in range from informal arrangements for assistance with family, friends and neighbours, to community schemes like micro-insurance and mutual insurance based on affinity groups such as communities and trades, to formal insurance, where funds are collected by a profit-making third party, to reinsurance, which accepts risks that are too severe for smaller schemes or operators to retain. These are briefly discussed in the below sections. 4.3 Traditional flood insurance 69 Insurance can work only for risks that are insurable. The main principles of insurability are: risks have to be quantifiable, occur randomly and be many in number so that variations in claims are smoothed out. From the client s side, the premiums have to be affordable and the contract has to perform reliably. These issues sometimes prevent insurers covering losses due to flooding, pollution, farming and gradual deterioration of assets. Key insurance principles that determine the insurability of a risk and how they are applied in case of flood risks are given in Box 2 (Swiss Re, 1998). INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 21

30 WMO/GWP ASSOCIATED PROGRAMME ON FLOOD MANAGEMENT Box 2 Insurance Principles and Floods Key insurance principles that decide the insurability of a particular hazard in a given situation are mutuality, need, assessability, randomness, economic viability and similarity of threat: Mutuality: A large number of people who are at risk must combine to form a risk community. In case of flooding, the mutuality requirement is not met when frequently affected risks are the only ones insured. This is one of the major reasons why insurance cover against flooding is not widespread. Need: When the particular event occurs, it must place the insured in a condition of financial need. Assessibility: The expected loss burden must be assessable. While it is feasible to assess losses due to small scale floods that occur fairly often, it is not possible to do the same for the statistics for catastrophic flood losses since their probability of occurrence is small. The assumptions in risk assessment in such cases are laden with a high level of uncertainty. Randomness: The time at which the insured event occurs must not be predictable and the occurrence itself must be independent of the will of the insured. Economic viability: The community organised by the insured persons must be able to cover its future, loss related financial needs on a planned basis. Economic viability is threatened when flood protection measures fail, including the economic viability of the region. A once in a century event may overtax the local risk-carrier financially. Reinsurance is generally resorted to in such cases. Similarity of threat: The insured community must be exposed to the same threat, and the occurrence of the anticipated event must give rise to the need for funds in the same way for all concerned. Similarity of threat of flooding is present only to a limited degree since flooding is comprised of various types of occurrences, such as storm surges, flash floods and dike failure. 70 Many countries have some form of flood insurance cover (see Table 2) 7. These insurance systems differ widely between countries in their treatment of risks. These different approaches can be categorized under the option system and the bundle system (Chricton, 2008). Under the option system, insurers extend their policy to include flood on payment of an additional premium; as this is the case, with a very low take up, in Belgium, Germany, Australia, and Italy, for example. Under the bundle system, cover for flooding is bundled with other hazards, such as fires, storms, and earthquakes. This system is in use in Britain, Japan, Israel, Portugal, and Spain, for example. With the bundle system, insurers charge differential rates based on intensity of risk. 7 Paper dealing with examples of insurance schemes in different countries, contribution from Japanese Institute of Construction Engineering including JICE, 2003 and Yoshioka et al Risk Sharing in Flood Management [v2.0] [130816]

31 FINANCIAL RISK SHARING INSTRUMENTS Table 2 Various national flood insurance schemes and approaches 71 Evidence suggests that those at risk tend to conceptually ignore the probability of the most extreme and infrequent loss events, but insurers need to load their premiums considerably to allow for those events. This creates a gap between what buyers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to accept for protection against very infrequent but catastrophic losses. If the cost of the premium is relatively high, consumers will not insure. The high cost may be a INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES 23